Page 30 - Islands Business October 2022

Opinion Opinion

BLANDNESS DEBILITATES
REGIONALISM

By Kaliopate Tavola reach decisions and present a consensus view to the rest of
the world.”
It has been a bugbear for me for some time. However, over We were, however, concerned that the Forum seemed to
the years, I have learned that I was not the only one being have gone out of its way to seek a consensus at any cost –
stressed by this. Others, many in fact, have been equally even ‘with qualification’ tagged on. This essentially means
perturbed by this tendency for the Pacific Islands Forum Sec- that conditions must be satisfied by sections of the group,
retariat (PIFS) to produce, year in, year out, bland outcomes for example, before any consensus can be claimed. In other
statements of meetings, whether they be of ministerial or PIF words, some members can go along with the determination of
Leaders’ meetings. a consensus but would still have some reservations. We thus
Being bland can mean a lot of things. Whatever the meaning recommended: “Given the diversity of the Forum Member-
is, to me it represents a calculated attempt to under-report ship and while not undermining the overall solidarity of the
and misinterpret situations on the ground. It can mean a lack Forum membership and the importance of building a consen-
of strong emotions, features, or characteristics. The report- sus on key issues of regionalism, Forum Leaders consider the
ing is smooth and soothing in manner and quality. It does not possibility of providing greater clarity in their Communique
irritate, nor does it stimulate or invigorate. for why certain issues are endorsed by Forum Leaders with
There have been situations in the past when ministers and qualification.”
leaders had gone into their respective meetings with clear Being bland has created unnecessary misjudgement on the
issues about which they weren’t happy. The outcomes, how- part of the PIFS as regards its role. Again, it is to do with en-
ever, would whitewash those issues to conceal any possible deavouring to be diplomatic, suave and urbane to the extent
sign of discord or dissension within the group. Bland language it confuses its role relative to the Forum of Ministers and
would be used to downplay any strong emotions or utterances Leaders that it serves.
that were delivered and were heard, and which were subse- As far as I’m concerned, PIFS is there to service the Min-
quently picked up by the general media. isters and Forum Leaders. The Ministers and Leaders expect
The Forum is characterised by a diversity of membership. PIFS to do the work of administering the Forum, as delegated
Members’ economic status varies from developed countries to it, when and if required. The Ministers and Leaders essen-
to developing and least developed countries. There are small tially direct PIFS to carry out its work. They do not ‘request’
island developing states – some not fully independent and PIFS to carry out the work mandated to it.
there are the French territories. There are variations due to The 2020 FEMM Outcomes Statements is a good example.
geography, geopolitics and geostrategy. Australia and New The meeting was virtual. However, that is not an excuse for
Zealand (ANZ), PIF’s two developed country members, are PIFS to be confused about its duty. Paragraph 15 (iii): Forum
also significant Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) donors Economic Ministers ‘requested the Secretariat, in partnership
in the region. with CROP agencies and development partners to monitor
With all this diversity, it would be expected that there the evolving impact of COVID-19 on the region and provide
would be a range of views existing in the group. However, the appropriate policy and technical advice and support to Forum
blandness of PIFS’ reporting reduces all issues to a consensus. Island governments in their efforts to avert and recover from
Diplomacy and politics in reporting removes any veiled criti- the economic impacts of the pandemic.’
cism that PICs may have of Australia and NZ’s foreign policies In trying to get to the bottom of this, I have come to realise
that may jeopardize their respective ODA. This is done to that you can certainly achieve consensus by being bland
please both sides. The PICs do not wish to be seen harbour- through under-reporting, misrepresentation and other cre-
ing any negativity towards Australia and NZ’s ODA. From the ative ways. This, however, can take you to your objective for
perspective of Australia and NZ, they do not wish to deflect only part of the way. Much has been achieved, on the other
PICs’ patronage to other competing global partners. hand, by purely opting to be silent on issues – as if by choosing
The objective of obtaining a consensus is central in the to be unvocal, the issues may just disappear and, with much
work of the Forum. Garry Wiseman and I joined forces in a hope and luck, lose their bearing.
consultancy in 2019 and we penned ‘A Review of Guidelines The Forum outcomes drafters are the experts on this mat-
and Format of the Pacific Islands Forum Meetings’. Under ter.
‘Consensus Building’, we wrote: “Ever since its establishment The 51st PIF’s Communique, paragraph 9 is a good example.
in 1971, the Forum Leaders meeting has always sought to First, it states: “Leaders noted that the region continues to

30 Islands Business, October 2022